Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
before, and have bid have a conversation on how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way. -- i would have a conversation about how to reduce our deficits in a sensible way. we can talk about how we can make sure we finance our workers getting properly trained and are schools getting the education they deserve. there is a whole growth agenda that is important does well. -- as well. what you have not seen as the notion that has been presented so far by the republicans that deficit reduction will only cover spending cuts, that we will raise the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. there are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. we're not going to put ourselves in a position where, in order to pay for the spending we have already incurred, where the two options are we were way to either profoundly hurt the economy, hurt seniors, hurt kids trying to go to college or we will blow up the economy. we will not do that. not whatever congress does. they will have to send me something that is sens
look at this spending and our trillion dollar deficit, they want to know where all the money goes, not just over a million dollars, and this amendment would take one step to providing transparency and accountability. so i ask this committee add the amendment, and i'd also file two amendments that would have needed waivers. these seek to ensure that local governments are not violating the second amendment right office law abiding citizens. and then number 60 would require certification by the secretary of homeland security that no recipients were receiving funds if they were agent acting actinn contravention to the law preventing gun con confiscation. when guns were improperly confiscated after hurricane katrina, congress passed a law to prevent this from happening in the future. in the state legislature in kansas, i led the effort to pass similar legislation. i have submitted revised amend 68 that would ensure that no funds are used under this bill in violation of the second amendment rights following katrina. my office cleared this language with the parliamentarian's office. many
for the taxpayers' use or the expression goes, to reduce the federal deficit. >> thank you, gentleman. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. hastings. >> i don't have any questions. >> thank you very much. without a doubt of funds, which i'm working on, -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that the gentleman, i know he's speaking on behalf of the constituents when we bring the amendment to the bill, the size of the package with the addition of your amendment, becomes larger than many entire appropriations bills. $60 billion. that's larger than homeland security appropriations bill. mr. king, that's larger than the financial services appropriation bill. that's larger than the state department foreign operations appropriations bill. these are bills from which this congress deliberates for months. hearing the chairman say before you came up to testify that he was committed to making sure that your folks get those things that they need. hearing the priorities that everyone has laid out, knowing these are not optional things that are needed, these are mandatory things that are need
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
began the fiscal year with $876.05 in the bank and a projected deficit of $500 million, even after taxes had been increased. i think a number of you remember that as well. working with the legislature, we ended last fiscal year with a $500 million ending balance, a billion dollar swing to the good and we paid off all of our callable bonds. good job, legislature. [applause] we are now in a strong fiscal position. the last decade was unfortunately a lost decade where kansas lost thousands of private sector jobs while the rest of america grew. in december 2010, our unemployment rate was 7%. today our state's unemployment rate is 5.4%, the 10th lowest in america, and wichita state university projects we will add more than 24,000 private sector jobs in the state this year alone. that's good news. [applause] when i started as governor, we had the highest state income tax in the region, now we have the 2nd lowest and i want us to take it to zero. look out texas, here comes kansas. [applause] in the previous decade, we had population losses of more than ten% in nearly half of our counties. today
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
veer -- inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put at a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to dig out of that. it is very difficult for organizations, especially in a crisis response, to think about just releasing the information before it's asked for and remove that deficit. i've been involved in several situations where the information was available and the information was understandable and probably mitigated some of the concerns, but because of the way the companies in the government work, it was difficult to make that transparent and then catching up with that with the american public is really, really difficult. nancy and marcia, we had talked about this with jay a lot. one of the problems we have in mental anguishing impacts -- measuring the impacts of the spill in the gulf is the lack of the background of the presence of hydrocarbons as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. in the context of moving beyond the direct aims of the research that's going to be conducted with the bp money, what do you think the lar
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9